Ya know you've been posting to much when you've memorised the thread number.

Good One David L :)
yes.. this thread has indeed taken on a life of its own.

Mahatma.... "etes"... haha. Trust you to pick up on that.. I don't think the thread could have survived without that insight :)

But personally, I'm just thrilled that we are all making the effort to grapple with this important issue.

Genesis 1 is quite simple and without question a statement of 'fact' to Christians, Jews and Mulims, and a declaration of 'faith' to those outside the religious mould.

"In the beginning, (when) God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void"

This is not far from the scientific explanation. Its a million miles from the various pagan concepts of 'God A and God B had a huge fight, and God A chopped up God B, and his legs became the moon....etc"

I can pre-empt the chirping and muttering about 'talking snakes' etc though I don't see this as a big problem, after all, we have burning talking Bushes for Moses. The exact nature of the communication between Eve and the Serpant is not crucial to myself, after all, we have Cockies which can talk :) Perhaps the communication was not literal speech... ? who knows. At that time, language would have been very limited anyway, and probably largely symoblic. So, perhaps 'said' may be taken to mean 'hinted at with actions' ?

Anyyyyway.. I hope all you contributors will enjoy this lovely sunny day (in Melbourne) and bask in the beatiful freedom we still enjoy to share in this way.

A gentle reminder though, (to myself as much as others) lets try to focus on the core issues rather than some matters of less importance

DavidL: From the article
“They define scientific inquiry narrowly so that it will eliminate the possibility of their discovering the possible truth about the origin of life. They complain that ID is creationist religion in disguise but their eagerness to reject ID as science reveals their ideologically-driven definition of science. They think good science should only implicate chance and not intelligence, descent from apes and certainly not thoughts of God.”

It seems the definition of science is of great import to this discussion. That you continue to try and define science in a way that excludes ID is simply begging the question and a logically fallacy. That you do so is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one. And that is why it is ironic. You complain about philosophy whilst using it yourself in an attempt to pre-define that you are correct.

Its_not_easy_being: “how can these possibly be consistent ideas”
It is easy. They can be consistent in terms of both views mandate the influence of intelligent design in life. Which is the question at hand.

Pericles: As I have said and explained, you are in error because you ignore that both positions appeal to intelligent agency, which is the only consistency in the positions that relates to the question at hand – Quoting Dembski and Behe clearly indicates this consistency is not something I have made up. You have never addressed this point and so I can only assume you are either off your medication or wilfully ignorant. Considering you started in with casting doubts about my motives for continuing ‘I don't believe you are actually serious about this, you just like hearing the sound of your own voice’ it is somewhat hypocritical to complain about me blustering.

Deuc: Hume is a philospher of some repute who was well aware of the laws of logic. That even though he felt we may not know with certainty a cause, yet he still it was absurd to argue that an effect can happen without a cause is a fairly strong indicator that the case is solid.

It is analytically false because the if nothing could do something then it would be something not nothing. Also, as an effect is defined as that which is brought about by an antecedent cause it is also clear that saying an effect cannot have a cause is false.

Bertrand Russell is by no means unbiased in the topic and so apealling to his authority does not hold any force. What should also be noted is that he also wrote a book ('Human knowledge' from memory) in which he spoke a lot more highly of causality and how it was necessary for science.

And yes. I disagree with all your points. So if I use your logic this makes you ignorant about these issues right?

All things bright and beautiful,
all creatures great and small,
all things wise and wonderful:
the Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
each little bird that sings,
God made their glowing colors,
and made their tiny wings.
(Refrain)

The purple-headed mountains,
the river running by,
the sunset and the morning
that brightens up the sky.
(Refrain)

The cold wind in the winter,
the pleasant summer sun,
the ripe fruits in the garden:
God made them every one.
(Refrain)

God gave us eyes to see them,
and lips that we might tell
how great is God Almighty,
who has made all things well.
(Refrain)

I would like to project a thought, though I would first like to know if there is anyone here who is of the opinion that the human race evolved from some species such as apes or any other species around today.

(NB: I mean the previous species before humans -if you think there was one- so for example, if you have the opinion we evolved from fish, please suggest the species furthest down the list in the order of evolution, directly before humans)